Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
If there are fossils, then it wouldn't be an assumption, it would proof that it changed over time that way. If you see, via fossils, that a life form changed over time to be a certain way (as fossils are the only real way to know this), then it would have to be because that change benefited the life form in some way or had no negative affect on its ability to survive. In environments where life forms have no competition, they tend to evolve a whole lot of unnecessary anatomical features.
|
Now we're getting somewhere.
"If a series of fossils exhibited changes, then that would be evidence that the changes were beneficial."
(Paraphrasing, correct me if I'm getting it wrong)
OK. That is your argument.
I don't think anyone would dispute that this would be evidence that the changes were beneficial.
How does this argument support macroevolution?